G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

To some extent, Stirner's work The Ego and Its Own is like a Rorschach
test. Depending on the reader's psychology, he or she can interpret it in
drastically different ways. Hence, some have used Stirner's ideas to
defend capitalism, while others have used them to argue for
anarcho-syndicalism. For example, many in the anarchist movement in
Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's "Union of Egoists" literally as the
basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising. In this section of the
FAQ, we will indicate why, in our view, the syndicalistic interpretation
of egoism is far more appropriate than the capitalistic one.

It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner's work has had a
bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Ben
Tucker, for example, considered himself an egoist after reading The Ego
and Its Own. However, social anarchists have much to gain from
understanding Stirner's ideas and applying what is useful in them. This
section will indicate why.

So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means
that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual's
every action, even when he or she is apparently doing "altruistic"
actions. Thus: "I am everything to myself and I do everything on my
account." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 162]. Even love is an example of
selfishness, "because love makes me happy, I love because loving is
natural to me, because it pleases me." [Ibid., p. 291] He urges others to
follow him and "take courage now to really make yourselves the central
point and the main thing altogether." As for other people, he sees them
purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual:
"For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to
use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness,
of utility, of use." [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

For Stirner, all individuals are unique ("My flesh is not their flesh, my
mind is not their mind,"Ibid., p. 138) and should reject any attempts to
restrict or deny their uniqueness. "To be looked upon as a mere part,
part of society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is more; his
uniqueness puts from it this limited conception." [Ibid., p. 265]
Individuals, in order to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of
the real reasons for their actions. In other words they must become
conscious, not unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary,
egoist is one "who is always looking after his own and yet does not count
himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time
always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than
himself and yet is infatuated about something higher." [Ibid., p. 36] In
contrast, egoists are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and
if they support a "higher being," it is not because it is a noble thought
but because it will benefit themselves.

Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with
the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks
all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls
"spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which
they are dominated. Among the "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable
aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour,
the state, religion, and society itself. We will discuss Stirner's
critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist society
(and how it relates to social anarchism).

For the egoist, private property is a spook which "lives by the grace of
law. . . [and] becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law" [Ibid., p. 251].
In other words, private property exists purely "through the protection of
the State, through the State's grace." [Ibid., p. 114] Recognising its
need for state protection, Stirner is also aware that "[i]t need not make
any difference to the 'good citizens' who protects them and their
principles, whether an absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic,
if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector
they always 'love'?. . . interesting-bearing possession. . .labouring
capital. . ." [Ibid., pp. 113-114] As can be seen from capitalist support
for fascism this century, Stirner was correct -- as long as a regime
supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including many on the
so-called "libertarian" right) will support it.

Stirner sees that not only does private property require state protection,
it also leads to exploitation and oppression. As he points out, private
property's "principle" is "labour certainly, yet little or none at all of
one's own, but labour of capital and of the subject labourers." [Ibid., pp.
113-114] In addition, Stirner attacks the division of labour resulting
from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and
individuality of the worker (see section D.10, "How does capitalism affect
technology?"). However, it is the exploitation of labour which is the
basis of the state, for the state "rests on the slavery of labour. If
labour becomes free, the State is lost." [Ibid., p.116] Without surplus
value to feed off, a state could not exist.

For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his individuality: "I am
free in no State." [Ibid., p.195] This is because the state claims to be
sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the ego can be
sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its "property"): "I am my
own only when I am master of myself." [Ibid., p.169] Therefore Stirner
urges insurrection against all forms of authority and dis-respect for
property. For "[i]f man reaches the point of losing respect for property,
everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they
no longer respect the master as master" [Ibid., p. 258]. And in order for
labour to become free, all must have "property.""The poor become free
and proprietors only when they rise." [Ibid., p. 260]

Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that
authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As
he argues, ". . . no thing is sacred of itself, but my declaring it
sacred, by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by
my conscience." [Ibid. p. 72] It is from this worship of what society deems
"sacred" that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover
their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation
involves the destruction of hierarchy. For Stirner, "Hierarchy is
domination of thoughts, domination of mind!," and this means that we are
"kept down by those who are supported by thoughts" [Ibid., p. 74], i.e. by
our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of that
authority, such as private property and the state.

For those, like modern-day "libertarian" capitalists, who regard "profit"
as the key to "selfishness," Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because
"greed" is just one part of the ego, and to spend one's life pursuing only
that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit
"self-sacrificing," or a "one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism," which leads
to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For "he who ventures
everything else for one thing, one object, one will, one passion. . . is
ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices." [Ibid., p.
76] For the true egoist, capitalists are "self-sacrificing" in this
sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour
is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to
slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought
(the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such "egoism"
ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one's own and
other people's individuality and so reducing the vast potential "utility"
of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based
on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the
market (an alien authority) and results in labour "claim[ing] all our time
and toil," leaving no time for the individual "to take comfort in himself
as the unique." [Ibid., pp. 268-9]

Stirner also turns his analysis to "socialism" and "communism," and his
critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This
attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist,
while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he
(rightly) attacked state socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did
not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the
time was Proudhon's What is Property?, published in 1840 and this work
obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that
were to come). He also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic)
socialism is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory
that socialism will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as
it is sometimes called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what
is called socialism was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such
ignores the individual: "Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal?
Man! . . ., In other words, he sees in you, not you, but the species."
[Ibid., p. 123] A socialism that ignores the individual consigns itself
to being state capitalism, nothing more. "Socialists" of this school
forget that "society" is made up of individuals and that it is individuals
who work, think, love, play and enjoy themselves. Thus: "[t]hat society is
no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or
means, from which we may derive benefit. . . of this the socialists do not
think, because they -- as liberals -- are imprisoned in the religious
principle and zealously aspire after -- a sacred society, such as the
State was hitherto." [Ibid., p. 123]

So how could Stirner's egoist vision fit with social anarchist ideas? The
key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the "union
of egoists," his proposed alternative mode of organising modern society.
Stirner believes that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in
society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of
others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can
co-operate (or find "truces" in the "war of all against all"). These
"truces" Stirner termed "Unions of Egoists." They are the means by which
egoists could, firstly, "annihilate" the state, and secondly, destroy its
creature, private property, since they would "multiply the individual's
means and secure his assailed property." [Ibid., p. 258]

The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being
spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual
interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if
they unite with others." [Ibid., p. 309] The unions, unlike the state,
exist to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" between
individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which
will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends,
lovers, and children at play as examples (see No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 1, p. 25). These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise
an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as
well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging
to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and
spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it,
"intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of
individuals" [Ibid., p. 218], and its aim is "pleasure"
and "self-enjoyment."

In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their
uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly
the same bargaining power and the association created must be based
on self-management (i.e. equality of power). Otherwise, we can assume
that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will allow
themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner
himself argued:

"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be
lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually
an Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded
together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?. . .

Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the
rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact
that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life
of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger . . . [such a
society or association] is more of a religious society [than a real Egoist's
association]" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 24]

Therefore, egoism's revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego
logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly
those associated with private property and the state. Given that capitalism
is marked by extensive differences in bargaining power outside its
"associations" (i.e. firms) and power within these "associations" (i.e.
the worker/boss hierarchy), from an egoist point of view it is in the
self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them
and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and
self-management.

Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it
can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of
capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of
capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual's
experiences can be compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor
do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the "union of egoists"
for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their members, not the
members by the group. That points to a libertarian form of organisation
within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality and participation), not
a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage
slavery, where workers have the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you
can hardly be said to own it, can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, "[a]s a unique
individual you assert yourself alone in association, because the association
does not own you, because you are the one who owns it" and "I have no
wish to become a slave to my maxims, but would rather subject them to my
ongoing criticism." [Op.Cit., p. 17] Thus, Stirner's "union of egoists"
cannot be compared to the employer-employee contract as the employees cannot be
said to "own" the organisation resulting from the contract (nor do they own
themselves during work time, having sold their time/liberty to the boss in
return for wages -- see section B.4). Only within a participatory association
can "assert" yourself freely and subject your maxims, and association, to your
"ongoing criticism" -- in capitalist contracts you can do both only with your
bosses' permission.

And by the same token, capitalist contracts do not involve "leaving each other
alone" (a la "anarcho"-capitalism). No boss will "leave alone" the workers in
his factory, nor will a landowner "leave alone" a squatter on land he owns
but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of "property" as
private property and recognises the social nature of "property," whose
use often affects far more people than those who claim to "own" it: "I do
not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my
property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you
call my property!" [The Ego and Its Own, p. 248]. This view logically
leads to the idea of both workers' self-management and grassroots
community control (as will be discussed more fully in section I) as
those affected by an activity will take a direct interest in it and not let
"respect" for "private" property allow them to be oppressed by others.

Moreover, egoism (self-interest) must lead to self-management and mutual
aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and
social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate
someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing
hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the
full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in Mutual Aid,
individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but,
when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals
within society.

Therefore Stirner's union of egoists has strong connections with social
anarchism's desire for a society based on freely federated individuals,
co-operating as equals. His central idea of "property" -- that which is
used by the ego -- is an important concept for social anarchism, because
it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations
own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be
made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their "property"
and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised,
confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must be
organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of
individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual
interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and
equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest,
both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative
intercourse between unique individuals.

Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas
("spooks") influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He
shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view the
world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian
and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any
revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a
free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon
the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual.